Thursday, October 5, 2006

Pornography vs. erotic art

Pornography refers to representation of erotic behavior (in books, pictures, statues, movies, etc.) intended to cause sexual excitement. The word comes from the Greek porni (prostitute) and graphein (to write). Since the term has a very specific legal and social function behind it, we must make a distinction between "pornography" and "erotica" (i.e. artworks in which the portrayal of the so-called sexually arousing material holds or aspires to artistic or historical merit). The problem is that what is considered "artistic" today, may have been yesterday's pornography. According to our definition above, there's evidence of pornography in Roman culture (in Pompeii, where erotic paintings dating from the 1st century AD cover walls sacred to bacchanalian orgies). A classic book on pornography is Ovid's Ars amatoria (Art of Love), a treatise on the art of seduction, intrigue, and sensual arousal. With Modernity, in 18th-Century Europe, a business production (designed solely to arouse sexual excitement) begins with a small underground traffic and such works became the basis of a separate publishing and bookselling business in England (a classic of this period is Fanny Hillor The Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749) by John Cleland). At about this time erotic graphic art began to be widely produced in Paris, eventually coming to be known as "French postcards." Pornography flourished in the Victorian era despite, or perhaps because of, the prevailing taboos on sexual topics. The development of photography and later of motion pictures contributed greatly to the proliferation of pornographic materials. Since the 1960's, written pornography has been largely superseded by explicit visual representations of erotic behavior that are considered lacking in redeeming artistic or social values. Pornography has long been the target of moral and legal sanction in the belief that it may tend to deprave and corrupt minors and adults and cause the commission of sexual crimes.

19 comments:

Out of all the topics we have discussed so far in class, this one leaves me the least motivated. I'm sure it's my bias that to me this topic is the equivalent of studying junk food in chef school - but then again most of what I consider to truly be pornography is not inspiring to me. Must be my feminist side. Most pornographic movies I've seen are written for men so they can imagine themselves as the center of attention to a bevy of beauties. After they have repeated sex acts with at least one blond, brunette and redhead the movie is over. Boring! Just gyrating body parts after while.

I have actually never read a romance novel either let along Lady Chatterly's Lover, Kama Sutra, or any of the text Triff mentioned in class.

Perhaps it's because I'm tired of explaining to people that a figure sculpting or drawing class is a clinical thing and not a turn-on thing that I'm resisting exploring more of the topic. I'm really not sure what this means to me as an artist at this stage. Let's give it a few days and see if it changes.

Whenever pornography is mentioned, it is almost always referred to as something that is either wrong or dirty. I understand that religion has a lot to do with this negative association, but what I don’t understand is if pornography has been around for centuries and centuries, why is it not more accepted in the United States as it is in Europe? I agree with the professor that society has this undying urge for pornographic images. It is a natural thing for people to want more of something they are told is ‘bad’ or not allowed to have. So when people are scolded for enjoying pornography or erotic images it is only going to make them more curious about it. While I was in Amsterdam this summer, I visited the Red Light District with my cousins to see what it was all about. At first I was a little disgusted at the way the women were shouted at like cattle while standing in the windows, but then my cousin explained to me why she doesn’t mind the Red Light District and the attention it receives. She said that the rate of rape and sex related crimes are the lowest in Amsterdam than in any other country because of it. This makes a lot of sense because the men who have these urges have a place to go to take care of it. In my opinion, I think that if pornography were more accepted in the United States, it would be the same case as in Amsterdam with the low rape percentage.

Sometimes I get really annoyed with all the people in the United States that are so caught up in social politics and are constantly blowing these issues of nudity/pornography out of proportion. If someone is offended by an artist’s piece of work because it includes an erotic figure, then they should frankly just ignore it. The artist obviously put it in their work for a reason and it should be their choice as to whether or not to include.

I understand Michele, it’s a difficult (but important and unavoidable) subject. It’s not only about our bodies, but what we do with them… behaviors expressed through them, which of course presupposes human intentions and desires, etc. In the context of our class, it’s important to make a distinction between the obviously demeaning, exploitative images that saturate cyberspace and those images that remain in the aesthetic realm as symbols of artistic value. Why is that, with time, there is a “constant” shifting of standards (and I guess that’s unavoidable, though it doesn’t explain the issue) of what’s obscene? Obviously, one would have to pose the question, if Naked Lunch was so obscene in 1960, why is it not in 2000? (Norman Mailer touts Burroughs’ novel as “a book of great beauty”). Or is it “obscene” throughout and then the issue is one of understanding that it has artistic merit? Can one say that there’s good and bad pornography? As when one says there’s good and bad jazz or rock? What does it mean to say “X” has artistic merit? Is that “merit” redeeming? (As if bringing “X” into a different context, where it can be rightly enjoyed?).

I think one of the most difficult things about distinguishing between what is pornography and what is art is the use of nudity. For centuries nudes have been used in paintings. Men, women and even children were depicted in the nude, sometimes entirely. Many times it served some religious significance, as in adam and eve. Other times the nude body was used to show the ideal human form, as in many sculptures of 'David'. The biggest difference between old nudity and new is its intent. Old nudity was not used to arrouse the observer or even necesarilly to hint at sex. In pornography, however its sole intent is to portray a sexual nature. Not only are the people in pornography nude for the purpose of its sexual nature, but their interactions with one another are also sexual in nature. In classical art, the nudes interacted as you might see fully clothed people do on the street. Aside from the initial realization that the figures were naked, any thought of a sexual atmosphere was both conceived of and layed to rest at that very moment because nudity in classical art was rarely, if ever, used for that purpose. Pornography on the other hand seems to be devoid of any artistic intent all together. It is this use, or relevance, on the nude human form that separate the two. Artistically speaking, the nude is but a small aspect of the piece as a whole. Pornography however is nothing without nudity.

Appropriately enough, today I learned of a recent news report about an elementary school teacher (who had been teaching for 28 years) who was fired after taking her fifth grade class to a museum and students were exposed to nude images. After a parent discovered that his/her child saw nude images, it was complained and the school suspended this teacher. When I learned of this, I couldn’t help but think about our last class discussion. Although this may not necessarily be directly related to “pornography”, I think that there is something interesting to be said about the western mentality on nudity. Growing up much of my childhood in another country, I noticed a clear difference between the two cultures. Where in one there is an acceptance and embrace of the human body, here it seems there is a major fear and phobia over our body. Why is there such a discrepancy? -J. Tao

This "pornography" subject does not call my attention in a dirty way at all, though it is true that is unavoidable because we see it every single day. There are lots of movies and magazines nowadays, that in some way refer to pornography (i.e. women and men's naked bodies for an ad). I pointed this out, because women's values have vanished thanks to pornography. Throughout the years I have always been taught that pornography is not right, well I guess it is because of my family's religion or even the society in my country that has a lot to do with it. It was really surprising the time I went to an art gallery in my country; in which my school teacher showed a bunch of naked bodies painted on canvas. People commented that it was pornography and that it should not be exposed at a gallery just like that, I did not feel that way because I was admiring the way he had painting human bodies in such a perfect way. Well I guess I say I am not interested in pornography and I believe that it should not be exposed so liberately.But I still wonder.. is it 100% art?

As we touched on in class, pornography is a confusing word, hard to define, and ever evolving. The definition it’s self is a controversial issue; hotly debated and constantly in transition, in terms of an applicable meaning to our changing society. For the most part we all know “pornography” as seeing the act of sex, or a sexually explicit pose; in raw terms seeing the body nude and aroused seems to be a common idea of something that is pornographic. However I feel there is a definite distinction between the “sex” scenes we see in movies and the “sex” scenes we see in a pornographic video. But what exactly is the distinction? Is it, the idea of love being involved in one and not in the other? I don’t think so, necessarily. After all there are movies which show the act of sex in a degrading, and sometimes, even violent way. So what is it exactly that makes something pornographic? What is the current definition of pornography? Is it the viewer’s interpretation that defines something as pornographic versus what is actually going on the image? So where would an artist like Brock Enright fit into the scheme? Is his art somehow considered pornographic?

An interesting question that popped up into my head was the role of “fantasy” in pornography. Does an image which evokes our own deep dark fantasy better define the term of pornography, than that of Wikepedia? I think it might play a role. A “porno” video after all evokes our “fantasies”, more so than a movie would. A “R” rated movie just drags us along the story line, we become the character, in feel what the character feels; whether that be love betrayal, fright, etc… But a pornographic image allows us to stay our selves, while delving into our own fantasies. So know what if you could actually act out your deep, dark, taboo, sexually charged fantasies, in the name of art. Would the art be considered pornographic?

Brock Enright is a very interesting artist. Though he might be more “obscene” than “pornographic”, I think Brock Enright teeter-totters on the brink of both. Wikepedia talks about him, stating, “…He is a young New York based artist who came to the attention of mainstream media in 2002, when he created a "designer kidnapping" service called Video Games Adventure Services. Thrill-seekers pay him thousands of dollars at a time to be violently abducted, in a quest to live out fantasies and/or face their fears.” I personally had a chance to see his art videos, and to also be a part of his installation/ performance piece, where through a web cam, you were able to engage yourself with him, in real time. His art was definitely voyeuristic, and had a sexually charged undertone. Though it was not right out “pornographic”, the idea of the experience of his clients’ experience through him seems very pornographic. The idea of real people acting out such taboo fantasies through an artist work is very hard to comprehend and accept. There were grown men, tied up, with a bag over their head, bent over a bed, in nothing but underwear, engaging in awkward behavior with Brock Enright. And we, the viewer were allowed into this world. So I’m not sure where the term “fantasy” fit’s into the current definition of “pornography?” I’m not sure where, or for that matter if it even does? The only reference to “fantasy” I found in Wikepedia ‘s definition of pornography was the following: “Japan, which is noted for large number of rape “fantasy” pornography, has the lowest reported sex crime rate in the industrialized world, which has led some researchers to speculate that an opposite relationship may in fact exist—that wide availability of pornography may reduce crimes by giving potential offenders a socially accepted way of regulating their own sexuality.

What i find fascinating about pornography is that is reduces what is one of the few activities (if not the only one) that uses ALL the five senses at once (sex) to one that only uses one or two (sight and/or sound). As such its a relatively poor substitute. Commercial porn also seems to have something in common with spectator sports in that an audience pays someone else to engage in behavior they might not themselves.Dr. Triff differentiated between a porn film that has a narrative (e.g. Deep Throat) and those that don't; he suggested that this factor could elevate one into the realm of art. While that might be true, couldn't also the purely visual such as good photography, sets, etc. or even the choreography of the sex acts (if really extraordinary), also raise a commerical porn production into the class of "art"? Similarly, abstract art may not have "narrative" but there are still criteria for evaluating it as art.Non-visual porn in the form of literature was mentioned; another class of intriguing erotically charged or pornographic art to me is music--anywhere from Richard Strauss' "Salome" to Donna Summer's "Love to Love You Baby" and Serge Gainsbourg's "Je T'aime". Erotic music has been subject to some of the same persecution and repression that literary and visual porn/eroticism has.

Good point Dominic. There's definite an erotic element in some of Wagner and Strauss' music. Can you think of an example of "erotic" music that is not associated with words (as in songs) or narrative drama (as in Opera)?

For the most part pornography has always taken a certain viewpoint where the woman/women are made to be submissive, the man dominant. I believe there is a certain science or pyschological aspect that plays upon this role and others where for the most part only men enjoy looking at pornography. I also think that the subject of pornography is not well rounded, in the sense that not as many women enjoy watching it. Maybe more time and consideration should be taken in so that women can have a say as well... or turn on..?Hopefully I'm getting my point across. Performance Artist, like Carolee Schneemann have been doing such a think where roles are in a "pornographic" scene. I really admire her work and courageousness in doing so. Also as far as Western culture goes, we need to let go of our insecurities with the human body. I don't understand this conservative nature, if we should even call it that??

I must agree with Prof. Triff, the taboo nature of pornography has to do with what we DO with our bodies rather than their nudity. For a society so obsessed with physical attributes, Americans shy away from the nude body. There are few nudist colonies, nudist beaches, etc in the US. It is not common to go to the beach and see a woman topless, while in places in Latin America and Europe it is very common. The exploitation of the body is, I believe, the differentiating factor between erotica and pornography. Erotica accentuates the body, it highlights it as something beautiful, artistic and sensual. While Pornography aims to reveal even the most intimate of details. Pornographic films often SHOW the penis penetrating the female vagina, that becomes the focus. On the other hand erotica, in regards to sex, would be about the coupling experience, about the enjoyment of the body, not the carnal voyeurism of porn.I think that there is nothing shameful about the body, and I feel that in its nude form it is the most beautiful and pure. Carnal desires are natural, and can be exquisite. In fact, one of my favorite novels is Lady Chatterley's Lover. However, I am repulsed by pornographic films in which the only purpose is to show the body as a piece of meat. The obscenity of such films is what truly bothers me, the perversion that goes into making them. The difference lays in the use of the body as simply a pleasurable object, rather than a person with whom which a connection is made, and thus from that connection pleasure arises...

Obscenity is in the eye of the porn watcher. The Supreme Court watched porn for years with out deciding what was legally obscene. (This might account for ninety year-old Justice Douglas impregnating his young wife.) In any case they selected juris-prudence in not ruling because of their respect for freedom of speech. Today the court may decide that the Liberal Press is obscene and outlaw that. The Puritans left England to escape religious persecution. They in turn drafted some of the most repressive “Blue Laws” to protect themselves from temptation. Pornography itself is not objectionable to me. However the production and distribution of porn has been taken over by violent underworld players from around the world. I find it obscene to support this criminal element. Also, I think violence and war are obscene. This mind-set has no respect for human life and does not contribute to the elevation of the human spirit.

I think it was Aristotle who spoke about the inherent dark veins that exist in humanity and the need for those inklings to be periodically purged in one-way or another. Aristotle was referring to tragic drama and the resulting feelings of pity and fear the audience experienced. Modern society still requires that same catharsis, Porn. I think the Porn industry is huge and booming because like Triff discussed, society needs it. It is something interesting that should be explored further in art. It is almost impossible to ignore because porn will never go away. I think it’s a tool that can be utilized and accepted in art as a medium. Porn has a definite allure that would be intriguing to analyze and express visually or conceptually.

Smut and erotic art aren't the same. The difference is that erotic art addresses formal artistic concerns and/or makes a compelling statement. Smut isn't intellectual; it aims to please as quickly as possible. Smut isn't concerned with interpretation. Viewers aren't meant to interpret, they're meant to receive a barrage of direct, overstimulating images. Actually, there's push and pull both ways. It doesn't help that some porn is just so damn offensive. I think this is one of those issues for which everyone will have to draw their own lines.

Sex Pots – the relationship between ceramics and sexuality. There is a long tradition of sexuality portrayed in clay. The oldest sexual representations in fired clay comes from Egypt. From 600 BC to the Spanish Conquest in the 16th century there were two millennia of continuous history in erotic ceramics based along the cost of Peru, South America; the longest unbroken erotic ceramic tradition in the world, and in some ways it continues today. Clay is like flesh, and most mythologies use clay as origin in creation myths. Clay is also common, basic, cheap, and dirty. In ceramics, the body has always played a large role in representation because of the relation between pots and body parts (the lip, neck, shoulder, belly, and foot of a pot). Historically as well, ceramic objects were often related to funerary practices and rituals, and most historical ceramics are found as offerings buried in tombs with the dead, from the poorest to the wealthiest. In our world, there has been a resurgence of funerary or ritualized object in the wake of the AIDS crisis, which brought to the forefront once again the relationship between sex and death; Eros and Thanatos. In contemporary word, eroticism is everywhere. Contemporary sexual desire can be seen by the ever more present visualization of the naked male body, the availability of flesh and the constant erotisation of masculinity by popular culture in a popular culture that still remains paternalistic, heterosexual and heterosexist.

Images and more information can be found in the book Sex Pots, by Paul Mathieu